Lara v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Background

Digna Lara alleged that she was injured on November 6, 2019, when she fell while disembarking a JetBlue flight at John F. Kennedy International Airport. She testified that the step from the plane to the jet bridge was unusually or excessively high. Maintenance records from October 4, November 18, and December 13, 2019, did not show that the jet bridge was improperly leveled.

The Port Authority leased Terminal Five to JetBlue. Under the lease, JetBlue was responsible for the terminal’s repair and maintenance. After discovery, JetBlue and the Port Authority moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no material factual dispute requires a trial.

Evidentiary Issues

The court treated facts in the defendants’ factual statement as admitted when supported by the record because Lara’s response did not cite admissible evidence as required by the court’s local rules. The court nevertheless considered Lara’s challenges to the authentication of the maintenance records and lease. It concluded that affidavits from the relevant witnesses sufficiently authenticated those documents for purposes of the motion.

The court noted that JetBlue would need to establish a proper foundation at trial for admitting the maintenance records as business records. That issue did not affect the motion because the court was not granting summary judgment to JetBlue.

Claim Against JetBlue

The parties agreed that Lara’s claim against JetBlue was governed by the Montreal Convention. That treaty makes a carrier liable for a passenger’s bodily injury when an “accident” causing the injury occurs on board the aircraft or during the process of boarding or disembarking. The court applied the definition of “accident” as an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to the passenger.

JetBlue argued that Lara had not shown an accident because there was no evidence of anything unusual in the jet bridge’s operation. Lara relied on her deposition testimony that the step was very high and that there was a deeper-than-expected gap between the plane and the jet bridge.

The court held that the maintenance records supported JetBlue’s position but were not direct evidence of how the jet bridge was functioning on November 6, 2019. Lara’s testimony was sparse, but the court found it consistent, uncomplicated, and not wholly improbable. Viewed in Lara’s favor, it created a genuine dispute about whether the jet bridge’s height was unexpected or unusual. Because a jury could resolve that dispute, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to JetBlue.

Claim Against the Port Authority

Under New York law, an out-of-possession landlord—one that has leased property to another party—generally cannot be held liable for an injury on the property unless it had notice of the defect and consented to responsibility for maintenance or repair. The lease stated that JetBlue would assume responsibility for repairs and maintenance in the premises and relieve the Port Authority of that responsibility.

Lara argued that a factual dispute remained about the parties’ conduct concerning maintenance and repair. The court found that she had not presented evidence that the Port Authority consented to responsibility for maintaining or repairing the jet bridge or Terminal Five. Because the evidence showed that the Port Authority was an out-of-possession landlord, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Lara’s claims against the Port Authority.

Disposition

The court’s motion ruling was granted with respect to Lara’s claim against the Port Authority and denied with respect to her claim against JetBlue. The court directed Lara and JetBlue to appear for a March 3, 2023 status conference to discuss a trial date, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket Number 26. Judge John P. Cronan signed the opinion and order.